Text Size

Stardrive

Aug 10

I start with the Wheeler-Feynman advanced potential to Hoyle-Narlikar’s future influence functional. I then invoke Cramer’s “transaction” and Aharonov’s pre-selection history/post-selection destiny double quantum state vector theories. I then use Tamara Davis’s 2004 cosmological Ph.D dissertation and chaotic inflation. I propose that our interior bulk accelerating comoving spacelike slice cosmological metric 3gij expansion rate in conformal time is a dynamical 3D back-from-the-future (final cause) retro-causal holographic image of 2D surface conformal quantum field fractional quantum statistical anyonic qubit patterns on our observer-dependent thermal future de Sitter (dS) event horizon non-bounding surrounding surface (2-cycle).  The dS horizon is the hologram “plate” that we are inside of at its “center.” The Type 1a supernovae dark energy density we measure in our past light cone is proportional to the Bekenstein area/entropy of our future dS event horizon at its intersection with our future light cone forming a Novikov globally consistent loop in time for the allowed Feynman quantum histories. Our observable patch of the multiverse is sandwiched between our FRW past particle horizon and our future dS event horizon. Our past particle horizon is the future light cone of the Alpha Point inflation moment of creation. Our future dS horizon is the past light cone of our world line extrapolated to infinite proper clock time at our Omega Point finite conformal dS time. This is not the same “Omega Point” of Frank Tipler’s Big Crunch final singularity. There is no final singularity in my model. Our future dS horizon area starts at “zero” at the Alpha Point and quickly approaches the constant asymptote of ~ 10^123 Bekenstein qubits of Planck area because of the finite speed of light and the anti-gravity of dark energy. Starting with Seth Lloyd’s idea, I propose that all thermal event horizons (both the observer-independent black holes we are outside of and our observer-dependent cosmological horizon we are inside of) are quantum computers. The Feynman influence functional of out future dS event horizon plays the same role as Wheeler-Feynman’s classical total absorber. Therefore, net retarded causality with hidden advanced influences on the large-scale is explained. Indeed, our future dS horizon is equivalent to a network of static Local Non-Inertial-Frame (LNIF) detectors of Planck-scale maximal acceleration. Therefore, by the Unruh-Hawking effect, all retarded photons and timelike massive particles crossing the horizon will appear maximally blue-shifted to them and their relative energy will create a totally absorbing electron-positron et-al plasma corresponding to Kip Thorne’s electrical membrane picture of event horizons. This will trigger the advanced signals back to the past emitters completing Cramer’s “handshake” closed loop transaction. Since the area of our future horizon hologram is obviously the upper bound of the total thermodynamic entropy of the interior bulk hologram retro-causally projected image and since that area is only 1 qubit at the Alpha Point moment of inflation, the entropy of our past observable universe is small compared to that of our future universe. Therefore, why we age as the universe accelerates is intuitively explained. In other words, the cosmological past and future boundary conditions needed for both net retarded causation (past to future) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Arrow of Time problem) are both understood simultaneously in one blow so to speak in a natural way within the world hologram conjecture. My model contradicts the different Big Crunch final singularity models of Penrose and Tipler. Just as the frictionless irrotational flow in superfluid helium comes from the gradient of a single Goldstone phase in the spontaneous broken U(1) symmetry ground state,  so do the four gravity tetrad  and six spin connection Cartan 1-form fields come from eight Goldstone phases of post-inflation macro-quantum coherent 4D super-solid “world crystal lattice” (Hagen Kleinert) “color” QCD vacuum superconductor (Frank Wilczek). This suggests a close relation between Einstein’s gravity and the massless SU3 color force of quarks. Finally, a prediction about dark matter is made. It is suggested that both repulsive large-scale dark energy and attractive smaller-scale dark matter are w = -1 residual pre-inflation false vacuum remnants. Dark energy is from virtual bosons of negative vacuum pressure and dark matter is from positive pressure disconnected virtual fermion/antifermion closed loops in the Feynman diagrams that cannot be neglected gravitationally because of the Einstein equivalence principle that special relativity is valid locally. The dark matter virtual fermion loops mimic w = 0 Cold Dark Matter (CDM) in gravity lensing and the constant stellar rotation curves. Therefore, dark matter does not consist of exotic real on-mass shell particles in this world model. The consensus on the nature of dark matter as particles whizzing through space is qualitatively wrong in my opinion and will yield a null result like the Michelson-Morley experiment for the motion of Earth through the aether.

 



Subject: Frank Tipler's Ideas on the Computed Universe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM5yepZ21pI 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1ae5xgrD5M

Jack Sarfatti In 1995 Tipler wrote  ‎"The divergence of information coded in the biosphere means that a computer of sufficient power will eventually exist in the far future. I have argued in my book that life’s drive to total knowledge in the far future will cause our far future descendants to carry out this emulation of their distant ancestors. After all, we are now attempting to reproduce our ultimate biological ancestor, the first living cell from which all life on Earth descended. We would be the first rational beings from which all rational beings in the far future would be descended, so in reproducing us in these far future computers, life in the far future would just be learning about their history. So the laws of physics will not only be for us in the sense of requiring the biosphere to survive, they are for us in the sense that they will eventually allow every human who has ever lived have a second chance at life. Notice that this ‘life goes on forever’ picture really makes use only of the integers. At any one time, the complexity of the universe is finite. In fact, we could now be an emulation in a digital computer! But since we have no way of reaching the computer from inside the emulation, we could just regard the emulation as fundamental. This would mean regarding physical reality as a subset of mathematical reality. This is the Platonic universe: physical reality is not ‘real’ ultimately; only number—the integers comprising the true ultimate reality— is actually real. What does mathematics tell us about this ultimate integer reality?"

Ian Yekhlef In 'the Physics of Immortality' Tipler doesn't really give a convincing argument against Penrose's ideas in an emperors new mind. We have to explain Chalmers Zombies ( see his ideas on consciousness :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo&feature=related


Jack Sarfatti Tipler's cosmological model is completely wrong in my opinion. It's inconsistent with Tamara Davis's 2004 fig1.1 at
http://stardrive.org/
He does not seem to understand the holographic principle and the idea that the reciprocal of the dark energy density in our past light cone is the area of our future event horizon. The future entropy of our observable section of the multiverse is finite not infinite. We do not have a final singularity Omega Point, rather we have a non-singular future Omega surface that is a computer.

Ian Yekhlef ‎@ Jack The reason why Tipler's cosmology is interesting is because, while thinking of the future of the universe, he includes that possibility that life may be important in the final state of the universe. Any sufficiently advanced intelligent life my engulf and ultimately be able to control the final state of the universe. It sounds like science fiction but if life did perpetuate and continue to advance a big crunch in 1-dimension would be the most useful final state, since life could literally compute with the universe itself creating an infinite state machine. Whether its realised or not is another thing.

Ian Yekhlef I just remembered that he bases everything on the 'eternal life' postulate of Dirac. Which is that Life will exist indefinately to the end of time. Then he wonders, 'so if life exists forever it will natural try and orchestrate the collapse of the universe' since a big crunch is the most favourable final state of the universe and allows the creation of an infinite state turing machine. Bearing in mind that the collapse of the universe will be chaotic in different spacial dimensions, which is desirable since the collapse need only occur in one direction resulting in an infinite temperature gradient. (We are talking at least 100 billion yrs in the future so intelligent life will be 'Masters of spacetime', in a way we cannot conceive of). He calls this point the 'Omega point' which he identifies with teilhard's Omega point God. I'm not advocating this theory, but he makes a good point. If intelligent life continues untill the final state of the universe, becoming more advanced, we cannot neglect the possiblity of its involvment in the final state of the Universe.
· Jack Sarfatti Yes, of course, but his cosmology is wrong. The final state is our future event horizon. It's not a point. The future universe does not collapse to a Big Crunch. Details in Tamara Davis's PhD you can download it - just Google.

Jack Sarfatti My theory based on Tamara Davis has all the virtues of Tipler's idea you point out without the vices as far as I am aware.

Ian Yekhlef Yes I know about the work of Tamara Davies, I was simply stating Tipler's idea. I do not advocate them, the Physics of immortality was published in 1994, so its an old way of thinking. I have read it and its an excellent book, even if it is out dated.

Ian Yekhlef I don't really understand how you can create an infinite state Turing machine with our future event horizon?...I know what your gonna say, your going to suggest I read Seth lloyd's account of a quantum computing with black holes...

Jack Sarfatti It's not infinite. It's ~ 10^123 BITS - don't need no stink'n infinities in physics. ;-) Observable universe is a finite state qubit machine non-algorithmic in Penrose's sense because of signal nonlocality violating quantum theory, but not violating post-quantum theory.


Aug 07

but with important differences -

Tipler's cosmological model is completely wrong in my opinion. It's inconsistent with Tamara Davis's 2004 fig1.1 at

Tipler does not seem to understand the holographic principle and the idea that the reciprocal of the dark energy density in our past light cone is the area of our future event horizon. The future entropy of our observable section of the multiverse is finite not infinite. We do not have a final singularity Omega Point, rather we have a non-singular future Omega surface that is a computer - based on Tamara Davis's work.

"The divergence of information coded in the biosphere means that a computer of sufficient power will eventually exist in the far future. I have argued in my book that life’s drive to total knowledge in the far future will cause our far future descendants to carry out this emulation of their distant ancestors. After all, we are now attempting to reproduce our ultimate biological ancestor, the first living cell from which all life on Earth descended. We would be the first rational beings from which all rational beings in the far future would be descended, so in reproducing us in these far future computers, life in the far future would just be learning about their history. So the laws of physics will not only be for us in the sense of requiring the biosphere to survive, they are for us in the sense that they will eventually allow every human who has ever lived have a second chance at life. Notice that this ‘life goes on forever’ picture really makes use only of the integers. At any one time, the complexity of the universe is finite. In fact, we could now be an emulation in a digital computer! But since we have no way of reaching the computer from inside the emulation, we could just regard the emulation as fundamental. This would mean regarding physical reality as a subset of mathematical reality. This is the Platonic universe: physical reality is not ‘real’ ultimately; only number—the integers comprising the true ultimate reality— is actually real. What does mathematics tell us about this ultimate integer reality?"

Aug 07

Tipler has interesting ideas, but I think his cosmological model in this paper is wrong. He thinks the entropy of the universe increases without limit. That is wrong. He has a future Omega Point - literally a point in a collapsing universe rather than a hologram future event horizon with a finite asymptotic future area/entropy.

Dirac derived his equation from the purely mathematical requirements of linearity, correspondence with Schr"odinger’s equation and sameness between space and time in the order of the highest derivative. But more often, the Platonic idea misleads physicists. ... The Platonic ideal was a prime motivation of the development of string theory. The hope was that there would be a unique mathematically consistent string equation, which would have a single unique solution. Alas, this hope has been dashed. String perturbation theory is termby- term finite, but the entire perturbation series is as divergent as the corresponding quantum field theory perturbation theory. And as string theory was extended to M-theory, the number of solutions was also realized to be infinite. ...

But in spite of these failures, there have been some notable successes in inferring the nature
of reality from the structure of mathematics, or more simply, from the simple requirement
of mathematical consistency. A classic example is found in Einstein’s 1905 paper ‘On
the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’. Einstein referenced no experiments in this paper.
Instead, he pointed out that the two fundamental theories of the day, Maxwell’s equations
for the electromagnetic field and Newton’s equations for the motion of charged particles in
an electromagnetic field, were mutually inconsistent: the former were invariant under the
Lorentz group, whereas the latter were invariant under the Galilean group. Einstein, in
his autobiography, gave a simple way to see that the Galilean group was inconsistent with
Maxwell’s equations. Imagine, wrote Einstein, a plane electromagnetic wave. Use a Galilean transformation to move to the rest frame of this wave. In this frame, the wave should appear as a stationary sinusoidal field. But there are no such solutions to Maxwell’s equations.

Such solutions do exist off mass shell as coherent states of virtual photons not real photons.For example the static Coulomb electric near field of a point charge in its rest frame is a superposition of Fourier components of different wave vectors k each of zero frequency f. These virtual quantum solutions do not, of course, obey the classical free far field Maxwell wave equations.

Einstein realized that this inconsistency could not be removed by modifying Maxwell’s
equations to make them Galilean invariant, without the resulting theory being inconsistent with experiment. But he realized that the same was not true of Newtonian mechanics, because a modification would involve terms of the order v/c, which would be tiny in the experiments conducted up to 1905. The rest, as they say, is history. Imposing mutual mathematical consistency on the theories of the day was to use mathematics to understand reality.

INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING REPORTS ON PROGRESS IN PHYSICS
Rep. Prog. Phys. 68 (2005) 897–964 doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04
The structure of the world from pure numbers
F J Tipler
Department of Mathematics and Department of Physics, Tulane University, New Orleans,

Roger Penrose’s argument is very similar to Einstein’s 1935 argument on quantum entanglement with his younger colleagues Podolsky and Rosen. Einstein proved that an uncontrollable random faster than light (and/or backwards through time delayed choice) action at a distance must happen in order for Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to work at each end of an entangled pair of simple quantum systems (e.g. two qubit electron spins). Similarly, Penrose proved from actual brain experiments, that if we have conscious free will, and are not mere automatons reacting unconsciously to sudden life-threatening changes in our environment, then a future post-quantum mind state must influence a past material brain electrical state over a time scale of about 1 second. Indeed, this is why the “second” ~ 1044 Planck times was chosen as our unit of time – a seemingly contingent artifact of our material evolution? Or are we the product of intentional design from a future designer creating itself?

 

Igor Novikov wrote in “The River of Time”[1]

 

It is possible to imagine that using specially designed machinery, a human being could get into a special ‘tunnel’ in which he moves backwards with respect to time in the external space, and emerges in the past when passing through the other mouth of this tunnel. … the traveler through time does not get younger … having sneaked into the past, he can find himself … in his youth or even … before he was born … [Kip] Thorne showed that to stabilize a tunnel, it must be filled with an unusual matter … the anti-gravitation of this matter prevents the collapse of the tunnel”

 

There are two possibilities here, one is to amplify the small ambient random zero point fluctuations of the virtual light that is the dark energy in some way. The other is, perhaps, to make a very high Tc superconducting meta-material with negative index of refraction of non-random non-radiating near electromagnetic fields. If UFOs are real machines and not mass delusions then an advanced ET intelligence has figured out a way to make these star gate space-time tunnels.

 

“With the time machine becoming a reality, the future starts to affect the past. All events occur in such a way that this influence is taken into account. However, once an event has taken place (it was influenced by the events both in the past and the future), that’s the end, it cannot be altered.” (p.263) … of the limitations imposed on ‘free will’ … a remark made by Einstein … ‘Schopenhauer once remarked: A man can do what he wishes but he is not free to wish what he wants.’

 

Indeed, Penrose gives several detailed examples to flesh out these limitations on our free will if our physical mind field is not retrocausal strongly violating the axioms of textbook quantum theory.

 



[1] Cambridge, 1998 Chs 14, 15


Indrid Kuld flapped gums 'bout yours recent Tales

"Vallée's opposition to the ETH theory is summarised in his paper, "Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects", Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1990:


   Scientific opinion has generally followed public opinion in the belief that unidentified flying objects either do not exist (the "natural phenomena hypothesis") or, if they do, must represent evidence of a visitation by some advanced race of space travellers (the extraterrestrial hypothesis or "ETH"). It is the view of the author that research on UFOs need not be restricted to these two alternatives. On the contrary, the accumulated data base exhibits several patterns tending to indicate that UFOs are real, represent a previously unrecognized phenomenon, and that the facts do not support the common concept of "space visitors." Five specific arguments articulated here contradict the ETH:

      1. unexplained close encounters are far more numerous than required for any physical survey of the earth;
      2. the humanoid body structure of the alleged "aliens" is not likely to have originated on another planet and is not biologically adapted to space travel;
      3. the reported behavior in thousands of abduction reports contradicts the hypothesis of genetic or scientific experimentation on humans by an advanced race;
      4. the extension of the phenomenon throughout recorded human history demonstrates that UFOs are not a contemporary phenomenon; and
      5. the apparent ability of UFOs to manipulate space and time suggests radically different and richer alternatives.
"

e.g. my (n/c)^4G, index of refraction of superconducting meta-material n < 0 & |n| >> 1 conjecture for amplified coupling of gravity to a negative energy density non-radiative near electromagnetic field.

Aug 05

Roger Penrose supports Fred Hoyle's key idea

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

 

Roger Penrose made a remark in “The Emperor’s New Mind”[1] that supports Fred Hoyle’s intuitive anticipation of Yakir Aharonov’s mathematics of the back-from-the-future “destiny vector”, limited though it is to signal locality.

 

“Suppose there is even something vaguely teleological about the effects of consciousness, so that a future impression might affect a past action.”

 

This is “signal nonlocality” in strong violation of quantum theory, but not of the more general post-quantum theory that seems to be the essential signature of living matter as distinguished from the dead particle beams of unitary S-Matrix theory that Gerardus ‘t Hooft bases his theory of reality on. Einstein said to make theoretical physics as simple as possible, but not simpler than is possible.



[1] Oxford, Penguin 1989 p. 444

 

The late Fred Hoyle wrote in his book “The Intelligent Universe”[1] before Yakir Aharonov?[i] – before Igor Novikov? – before Roger Penrose?
 
“Loops in time
At first sight, communication from future to past seems to lead to logical inconsistency. On the one hand, we have events behaving statistically according to the normal past-to-future time sense, the situation as most everyday situations are concerned.  … The less recognizable individual quantum events controlled from the future, as when we make up our minds to do one thing rather than another, can also have a major influence, however. These future to past situations are so subtle compared to something like a road accident that they tend to pass by us almost unnoticed. … Can cause and effect work both ways in time? … To avoid inconsistencies, both time senses must be linked into a consistent kind of loop.  … Cause and effect becomes a convenient description only in special situations involving localities in the universe, not the Universe as a whole.
”[ii]

[1] Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983

[i] Aharonov’s earliest relevant papers seem to date from 1995, though I may be mistaken.
[ii] With regard to the time traveler who tries to kill his father before he was conceived Hoyle writes that he: “hesitates, trying to make up his mind, which he eventually does through an individual quantum event in the brain, an event which takes the form that preserves logical consistency.” P. 247

From my book Destiny Matrix 2010 - still under construction - will try to resolve this historical question in it i.e. Aharonov's 2-state QM, Novikov's loop in time & Penrose's "presponse" (relation to Orch OR?)



Subject: Re: Dr. Quantum G 'thooft & Seth Lloyd, Teilhard de Chardin & Friedrich Nietzsche

On Aug 4, 2010, at 1:09 PM, JRJ wrote:

Dr. Sarfatti,

Thank you for the extensive response, and all the links you posted within it. It seems that Seth Lloyd is using a quantum computer as a metaphor for the 'computational' nature of the universe rather than suggesting that the information stored on the surface of a black hole – or a cosmological horizon similar to it, could actually be extracted.


Wrong, he means it literally. So do I and so do other mainstream physicists into the hologram conjecture. It's a computer. Indeed, I think it is a conscious post-quantum cosmic VALIS computer. The idea is already implicate in Fred Hoyle's book "Intelligent Universe" early 1980's and in his "Black Cloud" sci-fi novel and in I.J. Good's "GOD(D)" though not with the modern detail of the future horizon and the hologram of Bohm's Implicate Order -- indeed the smeared information on the horizon of Lenny Susskind's "black hole complementarity."

After all, the quantum computers we have now do require an interface with conventional computers to input commands and extract data and I still cannot imagine what this mechanical interface would be extrapolated to the cosmic scale (or even what 'space' it would occupy). But lets assume that I am sold on this point after I read Seth Lloyd's book – which I will do, because it is relevant to part of my dissertation.

No, the computation concept is more general than the implementation of classical material computers. See my paper with Creon Levit http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0032 on how gravity tetrad fields emerge as a supersolid distortion "world crystal lattice" from the post-inflation macro-quantum coherent vacuum. That is the "computation" that creates the curved fabric of 4D spacetime.

Before moving on to what's really important, let me also clarify my point about the comparison to Teilhard and, since you brought him in, also Philip K. Dick. Unlike your Omega Computer, both Teilhard's "Omega Point" and the "Holy Spirit" that is behind and beyond VALIS are 'universal' and 'necessary' in the sense that they would have come into being IN ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS.

Sorry, but that is what Richard Feynman would dismiss as apriori "philofawzy" that belongs in the dustbin of history. Sure you can find trivial differences of detail that obscure the key point. Obviously, Teilhard and Dick did not get the physics 100% correct. They see through the glass darkly.  "Universal"? "Necessary"? I find no need for those vague terms. In mainstream chaotic inflationary cosmology we have an infinity of universes, some are conscious. This is related to the "cosmic landscape" however with signal nonlocality the universes outside ours are, in principle, detectable.

I'm also a (late) Wittgensteinian in the sense you mean, and so I agree with you (and Feynman) that these are meaningless as metaphysical terms, but they have a very real psychological significance in that they appeal to religiously inclined persons seeking an absolutely certain cosmological crutch.

Sure, so what?

This mentality is radically opposed to the Nietzschean one that admittedly inspires your work, and so I was just suggesting that you ought to be careful not to allow the scientific theory that you have helped to develop be facilely adopted by persons who are really after crafting a new belief system.

Perhaps. I will leave that to the philosophers. However, all great ideas are corrupted by the Priests, the Victorian Station Masters, the hack bureaucrats of Kafka. Look what they did to Jesus, to Marx and to Josephson! ;-)

This is why the difference between what you mean by "final cause" and what they mean by it, does matter – sociologically. They don't need to be able to understand advanced mathematics in order to grasp the fact that you are NOT restoring ultimate meaning and purpose to the ENTIRE Cosmos (including what lies beyond our holographically projected observable universe). There's a Persian expression that refers to luring childish people into agreement with something they don't understand and that is ultimately not in their interests, it goes like this: "we'll make them dumb with candy, and then we'll sever heads with cotton" ;-) Don't do that. They should know what they're getting into with this theory, and how radically it departs from anything theologically motivated.

I disagree, it's enough that our observable universe bounded by our past and future horizons may well be a matrix virtual reality with a self-creating conscious program. Whether all the universes outside those two bubbles are also conscious or not is secondary.

Now, let's see if we can agree on what is really important, namely a falsification possibility for this theory. I understand that your interest in remote viewing is in the precognitive phenomena you refer to as "strong retrocausal signal nonlocality", because it fits into this theory. But the point I was making is that there are other phenomena observed in remote viewing research that could call this theory into question.

I hope so. Remember I think this is a really crazy idea spawned by Gerard 'tHooft, his Frankenstein,  that is interesting because, maybe, it's crazy enough to be "true."

These are: i) the ability to remote view the past; ii) the fact that remote viewers would sometimes become so fascinated by a site that they would 'bilocate' there (i.e. have an out of body experience) and break communication with their interlocutors at the facility; iii) instances where remote viewers were able to exert psychokinetic influence on the environment of the target site or people within that environment. Surely, you don't want to accept only the part of the remote viewing data that confirms the theory (of 'tHooft, Susskind, et al.) that you are advancing. OK?  So please reconsider the following scenario: a remote viewer bilocates to the past and is tasked with slightly changing an aspect of the past that his interviewers at the remote viewing program have all studied (but one that should not directly alter his past or the conditions of him carrying out the mission in the present).

Wait, if Novikov's principle applies, all seemingly paradoxical attempts will fail. Indeed it will not be possible to change any past detail that is recorded - unless the recording is in error. In that case, the past is what it is precisely because of intervention from the future in a self-consistent Feynman history. All self-contradictory Feynman histories vanish. On the other hand, if Deutsch's idea is "true" then anything goes because we have splitting timelines - each timeline is consistent. Deutsch works out the possibilities in his papers.

If he were to return to the present with different memories of the event targeted for change, then it would appear that one of two things has occurred: either he has wiped out large segments of the time line of his own universe (this means that some people who were originally born may not live the entire lives they have as a consequence of his actions, etc.); or, alternatively, he has crossed over into a parallel universe (and his co-workers who share his memories of the event targeted for change are still back in his original universe, where either the event never changed or his consciousness never made it back into his body from the past).

You here assume David Deutsch's conception of reality. Check out his papers and see if you have anything new to add to what he has already published.

You agree with me that under the theory you are defending it would not seem any more possible for us, as holographic projections, to cross over into a parallel universe than for a Star Trek holographic character to leave the holodeck. (I re-watched "Elementary, Dear Data" and "Ship in a Bottle" yesterday.) You also affirmed that, on account of the Novikov self-consistency principle, this theory does not allow the past to be changed. Well, if the remote viewing/influencing experiment above were to be carried out successfully, so that remote viewers tasked with carefully altering the past repeatedly returned to the present with different memories than their coworkers in the program, then it would seem that either: a) the remote viewers have crossed over into a parallel universe, and so they are NOT holographic projections of an Omega Computer co-extensive with THIS universe; or b) the Novikov self-consistency principle is violated by a change in the past of THIS universe. Either way, the theory that you have extended and are defending would be falsified. Can we agree on this empirical test?

Partially. The hologram theory does not choose between the Novikov super-determinism and the Deutsch splitting and fusing timelines. Your gedankenexperiment here might distinguish them. The Omega Computers in the parallel Level 1 (Tegmark) universes may be connected by signal nonlocality into a vast meta-Omega network - even extending to Level 2 and maybe Level 3 (I have some qualms about Level 3).

If we DO agree, then why not actually test the theory? ;-)

Any scientific theory that is not testable in principle is worthless.

You know Hal Puthoff. Are you also still in contact with Jacques Vallee?

Not for years - not directly. Vallee, I am told, mentions me in his Vol 2 of "Forbidden Science." I have not read it yet -- too busy.

Besides being involved in the remote viewing program, in the 1970s ("The Invisible College" period) Vallee seemed to flirt with the idea that the UFO phenomenon was a projection of an artificial, information processing "control system". I don't see any reason why, with the right backing from such individuals as Puthoff and Vallee, the empirical test I've crudely sketched above could not be carried out – at minimal cost, perhaps privately and by a group of volunteers. Of course, in case it actually works, we would have to take extreme precautions not to change anything about the past that would inadvertently affect OUR personal histories! I want my life left just the way it is.

Really? Many people would like to change their past. Oh, you mean by using the CIA Remote Viewing SRI protocols? That's interesting. ;-)

Finally, I would like you to know that our exchange has given me cause to rethink the part of my proposed dissertation where I argue against theories that we are living in a computer simulation. I had already been torn over whether or not to preclude this possibility. After looking into Seth Llyod and going back to read Philip K. Dick (as you suggested), I spent part of yesterday provisionally redrafting the relevant sections of my dissertation proposal so as to leave open the simulation possibility. If I stick with this revised line of thinking, I will credit you for provoking it. 


Your point about the creative tension between retro-causal hologram images of the future event horizon hologram (conjecture) crossing over, perhaps through a wormhole, to a different alternate observable universe is a good one. However, there is a new point that must be clarified - the future horizon we are inside of, unlike the black hole horizons we are outside of, is observer-dependent. That is, we need to think about what the future horizon is for an observer who has warp drive and/or stargate super-technology. In addition, the horizon picture is not fine-grained, but very coarse-grained - all short distance scales are integrated out. For example, the metric field of the solar system has in principle no relation to the cosmological metric - except for the Pioneer anomaly that is telling us something. So these are clues.

Deconstruction (WickedPedia)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the approach to post-modern architecture, see Deconstructivism; for other uses, see Deconstruction (disambiguation). Deconstruction is an approach, introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of exposing the contradictions and internal oppositions upon which it is apparently founded and showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible. It is an approach that may be deployed in philosophy, literary analysis, or other fields. - and now physics. Deconstruction generally tries to demonstrate that any text is not a discrete whole but contains several irreconcilable and contradictory meanings; that any text therefore has more than one interpretation; that the text itself links these interpretations inextricably; that the incompatibility of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus that an interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point. Derrida refers to this point as an aporia in the text, and terms deconstructive reading "aporetic." J. Hillis Miller has described deconstruction this way: “Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently-solid ground is no rock, but thin air."[1]

On Aug 2, 2010, at 7:14 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Jul 31, 2010, at 1:31 PM, JRJ wrote:

JRJ was at the Theosophy meeting, but he is not a Theosophist.

Dear Dr. Sarfatti,

It was wonderful to have been able to attend your talk at my uncle's place last night. I particularly enjoyed the personal stories you related. Here are a few of my questions/concerns about the cosmological views you presented:

1) You mentioned the remote viewing program that grew out of Puthoff and Targ's research at SRI. Consider three phenomena observed in that program: i) the ability to remote view the past; ii) the fact that remote viewers would sometimes become so fascinated by a site that they would 'bilocate' there (i.e. have an out of body experience) and break communication with their interlocutors at the facility; iii) instances where remote viewers were able to exert psychokinetic influence on the environment of the target site or people within that environment. There is no reason why these three phenomena could not be combined into a form of psychical time travel.

My main interest is remote viewing of the future - strong retrocausal signal nonlocality. I mentioned the case reported by Russell Targ at the June 2006 AAAS at USD.

It seems to me that an empirical test of your theory could be devised on this basis. According to your theory all of us are simulacra of a quantum computer...

It's not really my theory. The original credit or discredit for this really crazy idea is Gerard 'tHooft and Leonard Susskind. I have merely pointed out that their hologram cannot be the past particle horizon of our observable universe, it must be our future event horizon in the sense of Tamara Davis's Fig 1.1 c. The question is, is this crazy idea, crazy enough to be true?

... projecting the phenomena of this observable universe backwards in time, and the quantum computer in question is co-extensive with the space-time fabric of this universe.

I suggest that the computer is our 2D future horizon - and that the interior bulk 3D space (accelerating expansion) is its retorcausal hologram image.

(There may or may not be others that have been constructed in other universes.) This suggests that: a) we cannot travel to parallel physical universes (any more than holographic characters in Star Trek can step outside of the holodeck);


Good question/point.

b) any instances of apparent time travel can only effect self-consistent loops in space-time.

Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle

Well, what if a remote viewer bilocates to the past and is tasked with slightly changing an aspect of the past that his interviewers at the remote viewing program have all studied (but one that should not directly alter his past or the conditions of him carrying out the mission in the present)? Changing an aspect of the past is not possible in this theory. The past is what it is because the time traveller has gone back to the past to make it what it is in a consistent loop - if there is such a time traveler at all of course. If he were to return to the present with different memories of the event targeted for change, then it would appear that one of two things has occurred: either he has wiped out large segments of the time line of his own universe (this means that some people who were originally born may not live the entire lives they have as a consequence of his actions, etc.); or, alternatively, he has crossed over into a parallel universe (and his co-workers who share his memories of the event targeted for change are still back in his original universe, where either the event never changed or his consciousness never made it back into his body from the past).

Yes, if you believe David Deutsch's model something like what you say there. There is a conflict between the two ideas - Deutsch's vs Novikov's.

Under both interpretations, you seem to have a problem. One trial would prove nothing, but if remote viewers tasked with carefully altering the past repeatedly returned to the present with different memories than their coworkers in the program, I think we might have an empirical falsification of your theory.

That's not my theory, but it's a possible theory I suppose. In my theory, any attempt to change the recorded past will fail.

2) The metaphor of the hologram is vague, and when you speak of being able to compute on the surface of a black hole or of a cosmological horizon similar to it, it is not clear what you could possibly mean from an engineering perspective.

It's not my theory it's the theory of MIT Professor Seth Lloyd:

The Ultimate Laptop: A Black Hole - 2 visits - Jan 18
Some people may be convinced that they already have a black hole laptop, imploding at the worst possible moments and irretrievably swallowing data. ...
www.ar-tiste.com/qcomp_onion/.../UltimateLaptop.htm - Cached - Similar

Professor Seth Lloyd talks about the world's smallest universe, quantummechanics, quantum computers, and pushing Moore's Law beyond ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUMXe9gh7c - more videos »
Seth Lloyd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seth Lloyd is a professor of mechanical engineering at Massachusetts ... Lloyd, S., Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes On the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Lloyd - Cached - Similar
2.111 Quantum Computation
Seth Lloyd. Rm 3-160. 252-1803. slloyd@mit.edu. Prof. Isaac Chuang. Rm 26-251 ... M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, ...
web.mit.edu/2.111/www/ - Cached - Similar
Amazon.com: Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist ...
In Programming the Universe, Seth Lloyd, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at MIT and the designer of the first feasible quantum computer, ...
www.amazon.com › Books › Computers & Internet › Programming - Cached
An interview with Seth Lloyd » American Scientist
Seth Lloyd Click to Enlarge Image. Such are the dreams of quantum computing, an emerging science that enlists elementary particles to process information. ...
www.americanscientist.org › ON THE BOOKSHELF - Cached - Similar
Wired 14.03: PLAY
Quantum mechanic Seth Lloyd says we really are controlled by a computer. Previous: Anatomy of a Nerd | Next: Clean Getaway ...
www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.03/play.html?pg=4 - Cached - Similar
Edge: THE COMPUTATIONAL UNIVERSE
SETH LLOYD is Professor of Mechanical Engineering at MIT and a principal ... feasible design for a quantum computer, demonstrating the viability of quantum ...
www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd2/lloyd2_index.html - Cached - Similar
Technology Review: Q&A: Seth Lloyd
Seth Lloyd, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, is among the pioneers ofquantum computing: he proposed the first technologically feasible design ...
www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/17091/
Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on ... - Google Books Result
Seth Lloyd - 2006 - Computers
In this clear, informative, and entertaining narrative, a quantum computer scientist examines the history of the universe through the lens of a new theory--that ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=0307264718...
Seth Lloyd | Programming the Universe
Is the universe actually a giant quantum computer? According to Seth Lloyd— Professor of Quantum-Mechanical Engineering at MIT and originator of the first ...
www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/lloyd/ - Cached - Similar
Searches related to seth lloyd quantum computer

(By contrast the concrete engineering involved in a Dyson sphere, while colossal, is conceivable.) A computer, even a quantum computer, is a machine. Now suppose you could sketch a suggestive engineering picture of the machine that you postulate exists in our future (please try to do so), then your theory is really another type of Simulation Argument (e.g. Nick Bostrom, Jim Elvidge).

Seth Lloyd has done that as well as Dyson I think - the basis is the paper by Hawking & Ellis on cosmological de Sitter dark energy horizon thermodynamics - back in early 70's before dark energy was discovered in 1999.

In that event I wonder how you would avoid a logical fallacy that I think plagues theories of this kind: It is on the basis of problems of physics that you deduce that we are living in a computer simulation, but if we are living in a computer simulation, there is no way to be sure that our so-called 'physics' is anything even close to an isomorphic model of the physics of the first order 'reality'.

What is "first order reality'? I don't see any logical fallacy here.

"Problem solving" within the context of this so-called 'physics', of the kind that led to this theory in the first place, would in that case be a fool's errand, since 'physical laws' could be modified at whim by the operators of your Omega Computer. (In fact, such whimsical 'reprogramming' might be suggested by more radical paranormal phenomena than remote viewing or precognition, such as psychokinetic materializations that appear to violate the 'physical law' of the conservation of energy.) It seems to me that epistemologically grounding empirical research in the sciences as a meaningful (self-consistent and productive) endeavor entails a refutation of any type of Simulation Argument, including yours.

Yes, I agree with you about the paranormal. I don't see any force to your  other argument here. Indeed you should look at Max Tegmark's Level 4 "Different fundamental equations of physics." In fact John Wheeler suggested that our laws of physics are, perhaps, not unique. Agreed, however, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary falsification possibilities. http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

3) Let's assume that you can somehow answer these objections, and others that I could possibly raise. Then (with your postulation that the 'holographic computer' is in our future) you've contributed (together with 'tHooft et al.) to the most significant discovery in the history of Physics. In that event, you should not obfuscate this discovery by drawing a very superficial analogy to Teilhard de Chardin's faith-based metaphysical speculations on the 'Omega Point' and the 'Noosphere'.

Au contraire - that is what is important to the laymen - the unwashed masses so to speak. You don't expect them to be able to understand the details of mathematical physics. There is nothing in Teilhard's idea that requires irrational faith unsupported by evidence. Indeed, that may be why The Vatican regarded him with suspicion like they did Galileo?

I haven't read Teilhard since I was a teenager, but as I recall Teilhard's view of the convergent evolution of consciousness in the cosmos is based on a conception of time as duration and of an inherently non-predictable evolutionary growth that is similar to that developed by Henri Bergson. For them the telos towards a cosmic intelligence is broadly discernible, but the specific processes that actualize it cannot be mathematically schematized the way that your development toward the holographic  computer could be in principle (Tamara Davis' mapping project). Teilhard's view of consciousness is the furthest thing from a CPU clocking of information at discrete intervals in a state machine, no matter how small the intervals (10^-43 seconds?).

So what? I am not saying Teilhard got it 100% correct, but he came very close. I don't care about this or that quibble - minor details. The point is that the modern idea of consciousness as signal nonlocality combined with the idea that curved spacetime horizons have thermodynamics and are hologram computers, and the Wheeler-Feynman ---> Hoyle-Narlikar ---> Cramer ----> Aharonov-Vaidman are what is important here in a new physics of final cause as well as efficient cause. My point about Teilhard is that he came quite close to the ultimate picture via is own precognitive remote viewing - indeed I think all creative thought is Nietzsche's self-rolling wheel (The Will to Exist) - the Novikov loops in time. Of course Nietzsche did not have the modern physics in which to couch his thoughts. I am deconstructing Teilhard & Friedrich you might say? ;-)

Nietzsche, Friedrich
The German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 – August 25 , ..... a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. ...
www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Friedrich_Nietzsche - Cached - Similar
Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book For All And ...
Free Online Library: Nietzsche, Friedrich - Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book For All And None... a game, a self- rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. ...
nietzsche.thefreelibrary.com/Thus-Spake-Zarathustra/3-1 - Cached - Similar
Nietzsche — Excerpt from THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA: “The Way of the ...
Feb 2, 2010 ... A self-rolling wheel? Canst thou also compel stars to revolve around thee? ...Nietzsche on Black Nationalism: The Most Hu… ...
whitesurvival.wordpress.com/.../nietzsche-excerpt-from-thus-spoke- zarathustra-the-way-of-the-creating-one-17/ - Cached
Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra (excerpt, part 2)
Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra (excerpt, part 2) .... A self- rolling wheel? Can you even compel the stars to revolve around you? ...
praxeology.net/zara2.htm - Cached - Similar
Friedrich Nietzsche Philosophy: Immaculate Perception, Zarathustra ...
Nietzsche's philosophy of aloneness as a necessity of Creation. ... self-rolling wheel? Can you also compel stars to revolve around ...
saliu.com/Nietzsche.html - Cached - Similar
The Nietzsche Channel Message Board: Zarathustra: The Three ...
Apr 18, 2007 ... Post a Response | The Nietzsche Channel Message Board ] ... a new beginning, a game, a self- rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. ...
members3.boardhost.com/nietzsche/msg/1176924497.html - Cached - Similar
Thus Spake Zarathustra - Google Books Result
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche - 2008 - Philosophy - 252 pages
Then show me thine authority and thy strength to do so! Art thou a new strength and a new authority? A first motion? A self-rolling wheel? ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=1604593237...
What would Nietzsche do?@Everything2.com
Nietzsche has explained this in his masterwork, Thus Spake Zarathustra. ... a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a sacred Yea. ...
everything2.com/title/What+would+Nietzsche+do? - Cached
Nietzsche: Thus Spake Zarathustra - Philosophy Collection
1891 THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA by Friedrich Nietzsche translated by Thomas Common PROLOGUE ..... a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. ...
philosophy.eserver.org/nietzsche-zarathustra.txt - Cached - Similar
Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Friedrich Nietzsche Full Text EBook. Previous Section The Three Metamorphoses Next Section ... a game, a self rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. ...
www.lexido.com/.../THUS_SPOKE_ZARATHUSTRA_.aspx?S=2 - Cached

Furthermore, unlike Teilhard, you do NOT get back anything like an Aristotelian final cause in your theory (as you suggested that you do, in our brief exchange last night).

Retro-causation (Future to Past influence) = Final Cause in my book

What you referred to as a 'final cause' would be, in Aristotelian terms, just another kind of efficient causality – an efficient retro-causality affecting the past from out of the future. Final cause, for Aristotle and for Teilhard, is apriori – in other words both universal and necessary.

So they got it partly wrong. ;-) I saying what they would have said if they knew modern physics - a counter-factual definite allegation. Or you can say, I am saying what they should have said had they had sufficient knowledge of future discoveries. It's obvious to me that they and other poetic visionaries came quite close to what will be the ultimate cosmic narrative - the mainstream memes - in my opinion. Or you can say I stand on their shoulders? ;-)

While you call your Omega Computer the 'mind of God' it is not at all universal or necessary in this sense.

I don't understand how you use "universal" and "necessary" and why they are important? I think Richard Feynman would dismiss them as philofawzical quibbles.

It is more like a demiurge than the mind of any 'God', and while there might be similar demiurges in other universes, there might also be many other universes without one at all, or where life never even evolved, or where it evolved and was immediately snuffed out.

Precisely - that is chaotic inflation theory. OK so God is an Afghan Cosmic Warlord  - His Fiefdom is our observable universe sandwiched between our past and our future horizons. Note that the cosmological diagrams are very coarse grained where a point is an entire galaxy - so we are only giving a rough picture.

Our observable 'universe' should not be conflated with the 'universal'.

Red Herring, never said it was. Also the "universal" is not a useful idea in physics.

(I've always thought that to speak of parallel universeS is nonsense; "uni-verse" properly meant the one and only all-encompassing Cosmos – another term should be used for parallel subsets of this, and 'parallel words' is not much good either.)

That's because you have not studied how the term is actually used by physicists. I am a Wittgensteinian I suppose - the meaning is in the use.

At any rate, you can see that your theory is actually fundamentally opposed to Teilhard's theological view.

I don't think so. Even if it was, it does not matter. What matters is that there is a VALIS in our future in this theory and that is the essence of what Teilhard was saying.

You allow for an ultimately meaningless Cosmos (with this computer projected universe as a subset of it), ...

I never said that. I don't know how you inferred that from my talk? I think your notion of a "computer" is too narrow. Look at Commander Data in Star Trek - does not an AI have aspirations, emotions even?

... while his whole project is to restore man at the center of a divinely meaningful, purposively teleological, Cosmos.

Exactly what I said. You have inverted my message.

Let's start with these three points. I would very much appreciate your responses to these objections and reflections. I return to our native New York tomorrow night, and hope to see you there some day in the not too distant future.